Implementation of the strengths model of case management for people with a traumatic brain injury: a qualitative pre-implementation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: People who sustain a traumatic brain injury (TBI) may have to live with permanent sequelae such as mental health problems, cognitive impairments, and poor social participation. The strengths-based approach (SBA) of case management has a number of positive impacts such as greater community integration but it has never been implemented for persons with TBI. To support its successful implementation with this population, it is essential to gain understanding of how the key components of the intervention are perceived within the organization applying the approach. OBJECTIVES: Documenting the barriers and facilitators in the implementation of the SBA as perceived by potential adopters. METHODS: A qualitative pre-implementation study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with community workers and managers of the community organization where the SBA is to be implemented. Data were analyzed using a deductive approach based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). RESULTS: The major barriers are associated with the intervention (e.g. adaptability of the intervention) and the external context (e.g. the impact of the pandemic). Perceived facilitators are mainly associated with the internal context (e.g. compatibility with current values). CONCLUSION: The barriers and facilitators identified will inform the research team's actions to maximize the likelihood of successful implementation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".